The backlash to checkbook activism
Checkbook activism, where companies drop tons of cash into causes, is having a moment. As we discussed almost two weeks ago, when the brands come to protest, it’s often a hollow gesture. Over the last couple of days, we’re seeing a few threads from this tapestry unravel.
The first can be seen from Judd Legum’s Popular Information. This morning, he dives into the mental gymnastics companies engage in when they say one thing but do another. In this case, he shows how four companies say Black Lives Matter, even giving money to organizations that support the cause, but on the other hand, continue to spend ad money on shows like Tucker Carlson. Though I’m curious if these buys were upfront or scatter. That nuance makes a difference.
This, sadly, is an ongoing story. Companies spend lots of money on Fox News knowing full well its programming peddles misinformation, lies, and racist and sexist thinking. Almost two years ago, in the aftermath of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, I wrote about the lines brands draw in the sand when it comes to brand safety and where they put their money:
Advertisers make a choice, every day, on where to spend their money. And it’s always interesting to see where they draw the line, a line that seems to both be arbitrary and constantly moving. But what’s the line an advertiser draws?
This week, Land O’Lakes and Purina each made the right, if not bold decision to publicly say they are no longer financially supporting Iowa congressman Steve King. It took a massacre in a Jewish house of worship to shine a light on King’s racist views.
One of the companies Legum writes about, Johnson & Johnson, walks the tightrope often. The company pulled its ads from Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show after she mocked one of the teenage survivors of the Parkland shooting.
Where companies decide to spend their advertising money is important. It says they support the outlet, not just financially but philosophically. At a time when ‘brand values’ and ‘brand purpose’ and ‘cause marketing’ are terms du jour, the delta between what you say and what you do needs to tighten.
The New York Times stepped into the “will this be the time advertisers pull money from Facebook” story. The answer, we all know, is “no.” (Side note: if you’re writing about whether advertisers will pull ad spend and don’t talk to media buyers, you’ve lost me.)
Though there are some companies who are speaking up and pulling spend. A Swedish company wrote on LinkedIn, as reported by the NYT: “The current developments have now rendered it morally impossible for us to continue feeding the same hand that complacently offers its services as the major platform for hate-mongering, promotion of violence, and disinformation.”
Though I’d be interested to hear from some of the larger companies - P&G and Unilever have both called on the platforms to clean up over the years; how’s that going? I’d also love to hear from the big media firms - GroupM, UM, Initiative - and hear why they continue to put Facebook on plans. But maybe we already know the answer.
Facebook is too big and too easy of a buy. If an advertiser didn’t pull money after Cambridge; after Facebook lied about video metrics; after, well, pick your poison, why would an advertiser pull spend now because the company refuses to take down Donald Trump’s posts that spread lies, hate and conspiracies?
(Another side note: the NYT reports that Facebook’s Carolyn Everson sent a personal note to advertisers - if any advertiser received this note [or any other note, of course], my email is always open for you)
The same is true with YouTube. No media buyer is going to get fired for buying impressions on the largest and most influential media companies on the planet. The incentives are not equitable. However, should consumers start to pressure, that’s how change happens. Slowly, at first. Then all of a sudden. The trick, it seems, is for companies to remain consistent about where they put their ad spend.
But, the conversations are always the same: what’s the line an advertiser won’t cross? The truth is, there is no line for the vast majority of advertisers. They will advertise on Fox News opinion shows; they will buy impressions through DSPs from questionable sites; they will continue to buy inventory on Facebook and YouTube.
There also needs to be little daylight between where companies spend and how companies themselves operate. Make sure your house is in order before you start dropping messaging and cash on a cause that clearly your organization doesn’t follow.
The second thread can be seen in a Reuters report today on the growing chorus of investors and employees pushing companies to be better.
The rush of corporate concern belies the reality of workforce inequity, said Natasha Lamb, managing partner of Arjuna Capital. Arjuna is a Boston-based investment adviser and frequent filer of shareholder resolutions pressing companies - with mixed success - to disclose more data on pay equity.
“If you take an honest look at corporate America, outside their glossy diversity reports, structural bias for women and people of color remains as entrenched as ever,” she said.
Reuters also looked at workplace diversity data “from 27 large corporations that
made statements about race in the wake of Floyd’s death. The data is spotty, however, because companies are not legally required to release it and their disclosures can be selective.”
The percentage of black board members often mirrors or surpasses that of the broader U.S. population, the company disclosures showed. But the percentage of black employees in senior management is typically much lower. More than half of the 27 companies disclosed percentages of African-Americans in their top ranks that were less than half the percentage in the broader population, and many companies disclosed no racial breakdown for managers at all.”
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal highlighted the discrepancy between what companies say and how they treat their employees:
Companies from Adidas AG to Estée Lauder Cos . face pressure from employees to do more to confront racism and promote diversity, as social activism over the killing of George Floyd moves deeper into the workplace.
Following the killing of Mr. Floyd last month, Adidas like many brands took to social media to speak out against racism. Yet, some black employees at the company’s U.S. offices say the corporate culture at the German company is far from equitable. Those sentiments were echoed at other companies in recent days from cosmetics sellers to media outlets.
We’re watching several shifts inside corporate America happen concurrently. Employees demand more from their companies. And, as Axios reports today, there’s a coming reckoning for CEOs who don’t listen.
“The virus and renewed focus on racism have greatly accelerated the pace of the bottom-up revolution. The next wave of great leaders will adapt their styles and organizations to harness the passion — the weaker ones will be paralyzed and pummeled by it.”
Take these two together, a groundswell from the bottom-up for companies to address their own systemic challenges, and the pressure on companies to be more thoughtful in where they spend money, show how change can happen.
Or, maybe, and I’m just spit-balling here, companies just did the right thing - for employees, for customers - consistently, and not when it’s opportunistic.
Thanks for allowing me into your inbox. If you have any tips, or thoughts about the newsletter, drop me a line!
Jefferson Airplane, “Volunteers”
Some interesting links:
The breaking point (The Atlantic) [if you read one thing today, make it this]
Bon Appétit's editor in chief just resigned — but staffers of color say there's a 'toxic' culture of microaggressions and exclusion that runs far deeper than one man (Business Insider)
U.S. Business Bankruptcies Rose 48% in May (WSJ)
Why this is the weirdest recession ever (CNN)
2020 Is the Summer of the Road Trip. Unless You’re Black. (NYT)
So this is why Bill Barr is such a bully (WaPo)